Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the name of the game in photography was to please the eyes, why would it matter how we got there? imagery is imagery, you see it, you like it or you dislike it.
Trying to label Photoshop users as 'cheaters, is a pretty harsh assessment. The issue isn't Roger Clemens or Lance Armstrong, photoshop is steroids for visual imagery.
It's less a matter today of how you got there, and more of an understanding That you got there. Show me your most beautiful photo, I'll make it more beautiful with the
editing tools that have created an artform beyond great photography. Welcome to the digital manipulation era. Cheating, huh?
On the other hand; trees and snow can be whatever color the photographer wants to present it to the viewer.
And the viewer is entitled to have their own opinions, especially when the photographer asked for thoughts on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamplight
I like the faint greenish color in the trees of the original photo and I think the reflections looks slightly better, but some of the white areas look a little off, sort of yellow/tan. In the second version, the white areas are more blue or purple, but considering the subject that actually works better, IMO. Also a lot of the details look sharper in the second image. The first one looks a little dull in comparison. Not sure which I like better, to be honest.
Exactly, and you can remove the yellow tint and/or add a bluish tint without going quite as far as the second image. If Annuvin is interested and willing, I can take the original and post some alternate examples.
Images on this page are paintings. Did he cheat because he painted digitally?
Those, IMO, are perfect examples of how far paint artists go to make their creation as realistic as possible. That work involving railway station in Chicago is a great example of that. Check out the transitional colors in the sky. He could have made it all quite rich blue but he chose not to, instead worked for smallest of details, and as far as he could.
Those, IMO, are perfect examples of how far paint artists go to make their creation as realistic as possible. That work involving railway station in Chicago is a great example of that. Check out the transitional colors in the sky. He could have made it all quite rich blue but he chose not to, instead worked for smallest of details, and as far as he could.
And old time darkroom photographers used a piece of cardboard with a ragged hole or two in one end to dodge and burn to bring out details. I believe that was doing ones best and not cheating either.
And old time darkroom photographers used a piece of cardboard with a ragged hole or two in one end to dodge and burn to bring out details. I believe that was doing ones best and not cheating either.
A lot of it had to do with limitations with the equipment, and an approach to draw attention to a particular subject. But, as I said, there is an audience for both... unnatural and natural presentations. Those magazine covers are also an excellent example of the same. Clearly, if reality shows were anything like reality tv, it wouldn't have the popularity.
The artist you quoted is admirable in his work for a good reason: impressive realism. That was my point, on how such artists go the distance to be realistic with their tools.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 06-21-2012 at 11:06 AM..
I don't think it's cheating. Cameras aren't always totally accurate. I don't use it but I use other methods (iPhone apps) to correct & slightly enhance my photos.
I personally wish I could use my eyes as a camera, it'd make things easier.
Exactly, and you can remove the yellow tint and/or add a bluish tint without going quite as far as the second image. If Annuvin is interested and willing, I can take the original and post some alternate examples.
Please do! I am by no means a master at Photoshop... Given a little more time and effort with the program, I likely could have produced something better. FWIW, I liked the "green" of the woods in the original image, but I prefer the sharpness of second photo.
As for green trees vs dark ones.... It really depends on the time of day you are in te woods. The original image was taken around 1:30 in the afternoon. However the second image is more of a representation of the winter woods around dusk.
Please do! I am by no means a master at Photoshop... Given a little more time and effort with the program, I likely could have produced something better. FWIW, I liked the "green" of the woods in the original image, but I prefer the sharpness of second photo.
As for green trees vs dark ones.... It really depends on the time of day you are in te woods. The original image was taken around 1:30 in the afternoon. However the second image is more of a representation of the winter woods around dusk.
Okay, I've attached two photos - on one I've kept the color so the green of the trees is still there, mainly just removed the yellow, added contrast and sharpened. The other one I grey scaled and then added a bluish tint, which makes it look more like what you went for but not as strong. I went a little heavier on contrast and then sharpened.
Great shot btw! Hope my edits are satisfactory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
